Australian cricket coach Mickey Arthur and selection chairman John Inverarity have to lift their game if the baggy greens are to compete against India.
Michael Clarke is the only world class cricketer in the side. He makes batting and slip fielding look easy, and when he deigns to bowl, that looks pretty easy as well.
Paceman James Pattinson has fire in his belly, and providing his body holds up he will trouble every Indian batsmen.
But that’s it, the rest chip in every now again as Matt Wade (62) did with Clarke (91) to help the Australians past 200 on a perfect Hyderabad wicket after Clarke won the toss.
That was a 400-plus strip wasted.
So it begs the question, what is wrong with the Australian mindset?
The top four in the order – David Warner, Ed Cowan, Phil Hughes, and Shane Watson – have all scored Test tons, yet could only scrape together 52 between them yesterday.
And they struggled scoring that many.
They don’t look at ease batting with each other, and this us where Arthur has to step up to the plate to correct the jerky running between wickets.
The sure way to create tension is the poor judge of a run. Only Clarke and to a lesser extent Warner are good judges, the rest are ball-watchers.
And that makes them prime candidates to be run out.
Hughes is a serial offender and when he’s batting with Watson, another serial offender, it’s a nightmare to watch waiting for the “yes, no, yes, no – oh s*** sorry” call.
Arthur should get a tape of Bill Lawry and Bobby Simpson batting together – pure poetry in motion.
They were the very best runners between wickets I have ever seen from any country. They were instinctive, rarely a word spoken and they were off, running every run fast, and they were speed merchants.
That’s one of the major reasons why they were such an outstanding opening batting pair for Australia – they trusted each other 100%.
In 62 digs together they accumulated 3596 runs at an average 60,94, with nine three-figure partnerships and 18 over 50.
The best of them 382 against the Windies at Bridgetown in 1965 – Lawry 210, Simpson 201 – against the likes of Wes Hall, Charlie Griffiths, Gary Sobers, and Lance Gibbs.
It’s also worth saluting Matt Hayden and Justin Langer, as well as Mark Taylor and Michael Slater. Neither pair was as good between wickets as Lawry and Simpson, but they both gave Australia many a top start.
Hayden-Langer – 113 digs, 5655 runs, average 51.88 with 14 three-figure and 24 over 50 stands.
Taylor-Slater – 78 digs, 3887 runs, average 51.14 with 10 three-figure stands, and 16 stands over 50.
Which brings me to Shane Watson who must open from here on in.
He’s averaging 43.67 as an opener in 24 of his 39 Tests and just 28,50 at three, 33.80 at four, 24.28 at six, and 14.50 at seven.
And he prefers to open.
The decision is obvious John Inverarity, leaving Cowan and Hughes to battle out the three-four slot. For the moment.
And tell us Inverarity, was Mitchell Starc dropped, rested, rotated, or injured to be replaced by Glenn Maxwell for this Test?
Starc is the more productive bowler, and I’d back him to get more runs than Maxwell in any series.
Let’s see how Maxwell goes today with the ball, the pressure is right on.
Baggy_green
Guest
actually i feel that if the 2 bowling lineups for the first and second test are interchanged, we would have had a better chance in the series...2 spinners + 3 quicks in chennai , and then 4 quicks and a spinner in hyderabad !!! Also beats me this LOVE for the 1-shot Hughes...he never gives me a settled feeling whenever he is in , on any type of wicket...Khawaja is a universe apart and would have adapted well to these turning tracks...crap that he is the step-son of the NSP
Oracle
Guest
Jason Krejza anyone??????????
Oracle
Guest
Spot on, I've had a gutfull of Watson not capitalising in Tests................
Bayman
Guest
pj, Clarke made 130 and Henriques made two big fifties on debut. Both were right-handers and both showed more patience than the others. And both showed better footwork than the others. It's not the deck that's the problem - Clarke and Henriques had no issue with it. The problem is our batsmen, largely, are clueless against spin bowling and don't have the ability or the patience to learn. India picked three spinners because they know we cannot play spin - and especially in their conditions. Nobody should be surprised by that. Of course, being overwhelmingly left-handed is probably not helping against that attack but it's not just being lefties. They just make poor choices.
Jaiden Florimo
Roar Rookie
Michael Clarke #sore back #carrying these 10 duds #worst team in 30 years
Timmuh
Roar Guru
How can you keep Watson and drop Cowan? They're pretty much the same crap player with Watson not bowling.
pope paul v11
Guest
The great thing about test cricket is the ebb and flow. India are up and owe us big time so well done them. Fair to say they have been assisted by our NSP but our lads are just not good enough at this point and have been thoroughly outplayed. Where they are now has been on the cards since Pakistan's toou and bogus effort at Sydney when gigantic reputations squashed common sense. The Argus report is also flawed and the NSP use it as it suits them.
Matt H
Guest
Slightly irrelevant question: did Border bat at 5? I know he did late in his career. I feel sorry for Clarke. He will be mentally stuffed by the end of the year. One problem right now is the lack of experience to support Clarke. That is one reason Watson is still playing. Watson and sidle are the only other players int he team to have played thirty tests or to have played in India. I would like to see the selectors consider some experienced and intelligent cricketers to support Clarke. They may provide some solidity that is missing at the moment. Bailey is one. Not sure whoe else, but one of the Victorians maybe. I think Mitchell Johnson might have been useful as well. Fit, different angle, in good form and has experience in the conditions.
Matt H
Guest
Brilliant!
MadMonk
Guest
My theory is that the selectors saw all the blog and twitter criticism of not playing 2 spinners in Chennai and said stuff you lot we'll show you how bad the other 2 spinners are.
chris b
Guest
This is the best team atm. Nice post. You available for the nsp?
chris b
Guest
Great comment boomer, totally agree, hugely overrated player given his overall career.
Red Kev
Guest
What you clearly don't understand is that India is a different continent. There is different soil, a different climate, different grass, and the game of cricket is played in a different manner, it has evolved differently. You can't fight the conditions. Pitches on the subcontinent are low, slow and turn. Pitches in Australia are fast and bouncy. Some are roads, some take turn later in the match but all are bouncy and fast. It isn't cheating, it isn't pitch doctoring, it is the local conditions. That's why it's called test cricket - it is a test to tour and play well in unfamiliar conditions. As to your question, not being an Indian fan I couldn't tell you, I only see them when they play Australia. If you want the answer, do some research.
rock
Guest
too true
chris b
Guest
Agree the season does need to find a new rhythm and quickly. It, and the players, are all over the shop. One thing I can't get though is why our young players seem so affected by T20, but it doesn't seem to be impacting SA, Eng or India as much. Currently watching 2 relative youngsters building a partnership the time honoured way, admittedly against some sub standard bowling (tired seamers apart)
pj
Guest
australia have rolled teams on the first day in other parts of the world. india havent. and, australia have been rolled 1st day here also. tell me then, who has rolled india 1st day over there?
rock
Guest
it's funny how the Pom's rate Khawaja, yet our NSP try their hardest not to give him a decent crack....
chris b
Guest
Bit of a silly comment really given the 1st innings. Poor keeper, granted, but looks (and stats,agree so far,) a better bat than our current top 4, warner possibly excepted
Riff Meister
Guest
Puzzling for me is no explanation from the selectors as to why the changes particularly Lyon being dropped. Maybe the side was selected with Warne in the pitch meeting after Test 1.
Julian
Guest
Agreed. Watson handles the bowling relatively well. The same cannot be said of Hughes, Cowan and Warner. Warner's fifty in the first test was a fluke. You could make the case that his dismissal was irresponsible, but I didn't think the shot was as audacious as some have suggested. Clarke aside, he appears the most likely to get a score.